Going to Cuba': The wrong itinerary
Americans pondering a jaunt to Cuba this year under relaxed travel restrictions won't be able to pop in and say "hello" to Alan Gross. Nor will they find him in the isle's nightclubs or smoking one of its famous stogies in a comfortable chaise longue.
No, Mr. Gross, 61, a Maryland subcontractor, is doing 15 years in a Cuban prison on trumped-up charges of conspiring against "the integrity and independence of Cuba" for illegally importing computer gear. The Obama administration's crack foreign policy team has been entirely ineffectual in securing his release. Even Jimmy Carter, on a trip to the communist island in March, couldn't liberal up a pardon -- although an appeal reportedly is pending.
Yet despite Cuba's latest flagrant nose-thumbing, the U.S. is moving ahead with a new travel policy that's supposed to bring everyday Cubans and Americans together, supposedly for mutual understanding.
Even if Mr. Gross is released tomorrow, lifting the travel ban won't sow the seeds of democracy, free enterprise and liberty in the hardened concrete of Cuban communism.
"The only thing it does is provide hard currency for a totalitarian regime," says U.S. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., who grew up in a Cuban-exile family.
In fostering "better understanding," we doubt any travel itinerary will include Cuba's despicable accommodations for political prisoners.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.